Discussion in 'Art & Culture' started by Otto9210, Jul 19, 2010.
Curses. DAMN YOU AUSTRALIAN RELEASE DATES.
Mods plz merge..
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I disagree, the science behind dream sharing, manipulation, whatever, is not important to the story being told.
Saw it today and loved every minute.
How could they have wrapped it up any sooner? If there was ever a movie that needed to be 2.5 hours (which is only a bit over average for movies these days), this was surely it.
I saw Inception yesterday. Good movie. Well worth seeing. Only noticed one hole in the plot, which is rare for sci-fi action films.
WHAT??? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thank you for the reviews.
Example of good story, acting, and effects: "Lord of the Rings"
I will be looking forward to watching Inception, and will be watching here for a similar review of the updated "Tron" film.
An explanation would suffice. It doesn't have to be anything absolute. However, something is better than nothing.
There was an explanation of sorts, the dreamers are linked via a machine that feeds a drug into their bloodstream. That's all the explanation required to tell this story.
See any sci fi film that shows space travel, planet colonization, space stations, etc. None of them fully explain the science behind the technology because it is not important. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
in contrast to an awesome movie i watched last night..."clash of the titans". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
i was bored. :yawn:
Well agree to disagree on this point.
My point is-the explanation was moronic. There will never a chemical that will allow multiple people to share a conscious dream. He should of have taken the nanotech route, which is the most likely medium that will allow us to experience dream sharing. As I mentioned before, you can't utilize a technological idea that's 50 to 100 years in the future, then surround it with todays technology. If we made a quantum leap in neuroscience, why wouldn't me make a quantum leap in transportation or communication technology?
I think you're reading too much into it, if Nolan wanted us to seriously ponder the science he would have made a different movie. It's not really science fiction, since the science is purely a device that allows the story and set pieces to move along...the story is about the human condition, it's not a documentary on dream sharing. If it bothers you that much then you must hate Aliens (one atmosphere processor, really?), Avatar (remote body control), The Matrix, and just about every other movie set in the near future ever made.
Once again, if Nolan was looking to make a film that could convince the viewer the tech behind dream sharing was viable then maybe he would have set it hundreds of years into the future, and maybe on Mars? Really, the lack of science is no sane reason to dislike this movie.
The Atmosphere processors in Aliens were provided by a corporation that specialized in Terra-forming. Terra-forming is something that will eventually come into fruition(NASA has been drawing up plans for years), dream sharing by chemical means, will not. As I mentioned in a previous post, the Matrix explained that once we perfected artificial intelligence, the machines decided to take over since we allowed them to do most of our thinking for us. The architect and the mother computer in the 3 film both expanded on those points. Avatar took place what 300 years into the future? Being able to transfer your conscience mind into a foreign vessel will be child's play by then.
From a scientific standpoint, this movie failed in my opinion. There's not a sane neuroscientist that would imply that sharing of the conscience mind will be the result of a chemical process. Most of them believe nanotech will be the medium that will lead us down that path.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'll let you know in 300 years then Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The science is a red herring, it should not distract you from this story. If it does then too bad for you. If it helps then just make it up in your own head, I dunno maybe the chemicals contain nanobots or something? Jeez.
Actually it does. However, I'm not going to sit here and demand that you shouldn't enjoy the movie because my opinion doesn't parallel yours. I'm glad you enjoyed it, I'm glad it was done in a fashion that it believable for you. I'm just sharing why it didn't work for me.
Each to their own I guess, just seems crazy to me that one tiny insignificant element ruined it for you.
I didn't believe for a second that dream sharing could be achieved as shown on screen, but since I was taken in the by actual plot it didn't matter to me at all.
No attempt was made to explain the process or the machinery. The only thing that any time was spent on in the movie was a drug used to induce a deep sleep.
The dream machine was presented as a black box with unknown workings.
Nothing in the movie ruled out the possibility of nanotechnology being used in the dream machine.
Sure you can. Somebody may invent the dream machine tomorrow, for all you know.
Because most technological advances require input from disparate areas of expertise, often combined with one or more new insights or connections. Multiple technologies tend to develop gradually and incrementally, not all at once.
I think you missed the point of the film if you are so stuck on the technological details. The film wasn't a science lesson or an attempt to predict the future. It was a "what if" exploration of some possibilities raised by a particular imagined advance. It was, moreover, an action movie with some philosophical points thrown in.
Chris Nolan is a genius. Between "Inception" and "The Dark Knight", he's produced half of all the good moves to come out of Hollywood in the past five years (okay, I'm exaggerating a bit).
Funny thing, during the movie, I turned to my boyfriend and said, "Did the same guy make this as who made 'The Dark Knight', because it has a similar feel and depth." I'm impressed by any writer/director who can interweave numerous threads and make them all come to a satisfying and unexpected conclusion.
The movie was amazing.
It was a perfect plot device. I was afraid that they would try to explain the device, which would have engaged the "bullshit" mechanisms of my brain. By leaving it a mystery, I had no choice but to leave it alone and accept it for what it was.
Well played. Well played.
Interestingly enough, came across this the other day:
Separate names with a comma.